Beyond the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B interaction sphere - University of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

96 J World Prehist (2006) 20:87–126 Hallan Çemi 123 Çayönü Demirköy Nevalı Çori Hirbat Selim Zawi Chemi upper Nemrik Dja’de Göbekli Bir Jili Balagha Qermez Dere Qaramel Jerf el Ahmar M’lefaat Kerkh Mureybet III Jarmo Nacharini Asiab ? Horvet Galil Gesher Mujahiya Nahal Oren El Aui Safa Harifian Sultanian Early Aswadian Mureybetian Nevalı Çorian Trialetian Nemrikian Early Western M’lefatian Early Eastern M’lefatian Netiv Hagdud Gilgal Jericho A Jilat 7 lower El-Khiam Ain Dharat Dhra’ Nahal Lavan Wadi Faynan 16 Shunera Ramat Harif Mushabi Abu Salem 0 250km Abu Madi I Fig. 4 Geographical distribution of cultural-territorial boundaries in Western Asia during the PPNA and the EPPNB based on lithic typologies (redrawn after Kozlowski & Aurenche, 2005)
J World Prehist (2006) 20:87–126 97 Early Period (10,500-8000 cal. BC) Late Period (post-8000 cal. BC) 0 250km Fig. 5 The ‘‘Golden Triangle’’ in northern Syria, southeast Anatolia and the western Zagros (redrawn after Kozlowski & Aurenche, 2005) the presumed more advanced cultures of the western wing of the Fertile Crescent (the northern and southern Levant) began to encroach into the east, particularly the desert: ‘‘A combination of climatic optimum and cultural dynamism contributed to the conquest of these new lands’’ (Kozlowski & Aurenche, 2005, p. 81; my emphasis). Kozlowski and Aurenche have taken their theoretical inspiration from the work of F. Barth, in order to support their contention that ‘‘there are discrete groups of people, i.e. ethnic units, to correspond to each culture’’ (2005, p. 11; my emphasis; see also Jones, 1997, esp. chapters 5 & 6). In turn, it is such ‘‘ethnic’’ boundaries that define a group. They propose territorial, rather than social boundaries as an appropriate target for empirical investigation, which is to be carried out following the methods of culture-history: ‘‘The idea is to reveal ‘‘automatically’’ the existence of these cultures based on their territorial extension, each ‘‘territory’’ being defined by the boundaries which separate it from a neighbouring territory’’ (Kozlowski & Aurenche, 2005, p. 11; my emphasis). Here, culture-historical concepts are elevated to an unprecedented level. On the positive side is the revision this approach brings to previously established concepts, such as the ‘‘Levantine primacy’’. However, several theoretically and archaeologically questionable parts of their argument such as the identification of a culturally superior area, and the presumption that early farming societies tend to conquer new territories, are couched in a language that differs little from the PPNB ‘‘expansionist ethos’’ of Cauvin, following earlier work conducted by the Lyon School, particularly Hours et al. (1994) (for a detailed 123
Page 1 and 2: J World Prehist (2006) 20:87-126 DO
Page 3 and 4: J World Prehist (2006) 20:87-126 89
Page 9: J World Prehist (2006) 20:87-126 95

Beyond the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B interaction sphere - University of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?